Topic: WorldNetDaily
We have the answer to our question. WorldNetDaily will report on the accusation that Orly Taitz suborned perjury -- but only in the most perfunctory way possible.
An unbylined Sept. 17 WND article tackles the allegation -- but only after allowing Taitz to claim without challenge that "doubters should be questioning Obama, not her" and dismissing attacks on Taitz as merely "various accusations" that "have been cluttering the blogosphere in recent weeks."
It's only in the 13th paragraph -- after the non-news of rehashing yet again the eligibility case against Obama -- that WND actually gets around to the actual news of detailing Larry Sinclair's allegation that Taitz suborned perjury. WND makes sure to note that Sinclair's "allegations that Obama shared cocaine with him were undermined by a reported failed lie detector test" -- a display of incredulousness WND did not show in originally reporting Sinclair's claim in early 2008. WND then quotes Taitz dismissing the claim because "a person cannot just come from the street and file a declaration or an affidavit. ... It has to be filed by a party to the action. Either I, as an attorney for the plaintiffs, or attorney for the defendants, assistant U.S. attorney, would file something."
At no point does WND quote Taitz denying the allegation itself.
Interestingly, WND also reports a similar claim "purportedly" from Lucas Smith , "the individual who has reported obtaining a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama," that Taitz asked him to "lie under oath about information that I had no knowledge of at the time I was in Africa." WND offers no direct refutation of that claim by Taitz, either.
WND then quotes Taitz saying, "There was a rumor that there was some complaint filed with the [California] bar and I was disbarred. None of it is true." While it may not be true that Taitz has been disbarred, it is indisputably true that a complaint against her has been filed in the California bar. WND has yet to report on that complaint, and fails to correct Taitz here (as we've detailed).
The entire article reads like something WND was shamed into writing, built around a Taitz blog post and padded with standard WND anti-Obama boilerplace. WND makes no attempt whatsoever to verify the claims Taitz makes.
As much as WND editor Joseph Farah touts that he's "not afraid of the truth" and how "we consistently break stories they don't dare break," he and WND have shown themselves to be quite afraid of the truth about Taitz. Perhaps that's because WND has quite the little birther factory going -- from which WND is profiting handsomely -- and it doesn't dare break the inconvenient truth of Taitz's incompetence as a lawyer lest it interfere with lining Farah's pockets.
